Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (0-100 score, high/medium/low band, specific flags) and sets expectation boundaries around authorship claims. It omits operational traits such as length limits, cost, or whether text is stored.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is detected, then outputs, then scope caveat. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one input, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers purpose, the shape of results, and the interpretive caveat. It is nearly complete; only edge conditions like minimum viable input length are left to the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with a helpful note ('longer excerpts score more reliably'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the text input, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (analyze) and resource (manuscript text) and enumerates exactly what it detects: cliche-phrase density, sentence-length rhythm, repeated openers, overused transitions. There are no siblings to disambiguate from, and the scope is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Frames the intended use ('a pattern scan a writer can use to self-edit before publishing') and explicitly excludes one misuse case by stating it is 'not a claim about authorship.' Clear context, though it does not spell out when-not to run it (e.g., on very short text) beyond what the schema notes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.